wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: MPEG4 v JPEG compression
Robert C. Fisher 2005-Jul-14 00:18:00
I'm a little late in this disscusion but 2-3 years ago I tried just
about every codec, including some really cool but exotic video codecs
(I do a lot of video shooting and post). What I found is that as far as
bang for your buck Photo-JPEG is the best quality on most all machines.
Most of the video codecs like Sorenson 2/3 and MP4 were very processor
intensive and the play stuterted too much. At the time JPEG2000 looked
good but was too new. What is the number of machines these days that
can play JPEG 2000? I would be very interested in using it if the base
is high enough, I figured about another year till it's on most
machines.
I get the best quality these days by reducing my equirectangular image
to 3-4k x 1.5-2k sharpen then make cube faces of 1200 px to 1500 px for
full screens. Use med/low compression in jpeg. I have gone as low as 30
but lower means a lot of banding in continuous tone areas (like skys).
I might try jpeg 2000 again when I get the time.
On Jul 13, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Roger Howard wrote:
> What about JPEG2000? Last I tested it with VR there were certainly
> efficiency (quality vs. bytes) gains over JPEG, but it wasn't as smooth
> loading, especially for object movies. These days it may well work
> great - it's certainly better targetted at VR than MPEG-4 is, for
> instance.
>
> -R
>
Cheers
Robert C. Fisher
QTVR Photography/Cinematography
www.rcfisher.com